2.4 Disciplinary Sanctions, SOAH Hearings & Administrative Penalties

2.4 Disciplinary Remedies, Remedial Plans, and Emergency Action

Match the remedy to the authority

Texas Occupations Code Chapters 263 and 264 authorize TSBDE to respond to violations through a range of remedies. Depending on the statute and proven facts, an order may reprimand a credential holder, impose monitoring or education, restrict practice, place a license on probation, suspend or revoke a credential, or assess an administrative penalty. Separate statutes authorize cease-and-desist and injunctive responses to unlicensed practice.

An administrative penalty may be as much as $5,000 for each violation. Each day a violation continues may constitute a separate violation, so a continuing unlawful practice cannot safely be treated as a single $5,000 maximum. Criminal offenses, civil remedies, and Board discipline are distinct; one incident can implicate more than one system, but the elements and decision makers differ.

Remedial plans are narrow, public resolutions

Section 263.0077 and Rule 107.204 permit a remedial plan only when its limitations are satisfied. A remedial plan:

• may not revoke, suspend, limit, or restrict a license or registration;
• may not assess an administrative penalty;
• may require education, training, or other corrective action allowed by law;
• is a public document; and
• may include a fee that recovers the Board’s costs, rather than a fictional universal $1,000 penalty cap.

A remedial plan is unavailable for specified serious allegations, including a patient death, commission of a felony, inappropriate sexual behavior, and inappropriate financial or personal involvement with a patient. It also is not the right vehicle when protection of the public requires a practice restriction. A person may not receive a remedial plan if the person received one during the preceding five years—not two. Current law provides a process under which qualifying information may be removed from the Board website after the statutory period and conditions, but that does not make the plan confidential at issuance.

Informal resolution and contested cases

Many matters are discussed through informal settlement procedures. A proposed agreed order is voluntary until accepted through the required process. If the respondent contests material allegations or the sanction, the case may proceed to SOAH under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Board bears its evidentiary burden and ultimately issues the final agency order within statutory constraints. The respondent may seek rehearing and judicial review as allowed by law.

Sanction selection should consider the violation, patient harm or risk, prior history, deterrence, rehabilitation, and Board guidelines. Do not assume that a first complaint always produces a warning or that a poor outcome alone proves a standard-of-care violation.

Temporary suspension and immediate threats

The Act permits temporary suspension or restriction when evidence shows a clear, imminent, or continuing threat to public health and safety under the applicable provision. The terms are alternatives in the statutory standard; a question should not require proof that a threat is simultaneously clear, imminent, and continuing when the law says “or.” Emergency action is protective, not a substitute for the full merits case.

Prompt post-suspension process is essential. The Board must initiate the hearing process on the temporary action within the statutory timetable, generally providing a SOAH hearing within 30 days unless continued as law permits. The respondent then can challenge the evidence while protective limits remain in place.

Order compliance

Violating a final order can be a new disciplinary ground. A practitioner on probation should calendar reports, monitoring, CE, chart reviews, and restrictions precisely. “Substantial compliance” is not a safe answer when an order requires advance approval. Conversely, staff or a private complainant cannot add restrictions that the final order does not contain.

Applied distinctions

A minor documentation deficiency with no disqualifying facts may be considered for a public remedial plan if all conditions are met. A case involving patient death cannot. Repeated unlicensed operation over ten days may support per-violation and per-day penalty analysis. A dentist actively treating while dangerously impaired may support temporary protective action; the later contested proceeding determines final discipline.

Distinguish remedial and disciplinary language

A continuing-education requirement can appear in either a remedial plan or a disciplinary order, so the course alone does not identify the legal vehicle. Look for what the document may legally do. Restrictions, suspension, probation, or an administrative penalty point away from a remedial plan. Public corrective education without those sanctions may fit if no disqualifying allegation or five-year bar applies.

Criminal conviction is also not required for Board discipline. Administrative proceedings use their own statutory grounds and burden. Conversely, a criminal charge does not automatically establish the facts in a Board case. Track the status of each proceeding and obey any temporary order while preserving the right to contest final allegations.